When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_&_Nashville...

    That is, "arising under" for Article III purposes is broader than the well-pleaded complaint rule. It is well-established that Congress may grant lower federal courts less than the totality of Article III's possible federal question jurisdiction; for example, before 1980, federal question jurisdiction had an amount in controversy requirement ...

  3. Federal question jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_question_jurisdiction

    e. In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. The federal question jurisdiction statute ...

  4. Twiqbal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiqbal

    Twiqbal. Twiqbal is a colloquial term in American law (civil procedure), referring to two separate US Supreme Court cases that heightened the pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Together, these cases made it more difficult to sue in federal court by requiring that plaintiffs demonstrate that their claims are "plausible ...

  5. Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal

    Even if the complaint's well-pleaded facts gave rise to a plausible inference that Iqbal's arrest was the result of unconstitutional discrimination, that inference alone did not entitle him to relief since his claims rested solely on their ostensible policy of holding detainees categorized as "of high interest," but the complaint does not ...

  6. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobil_Corp._v...

    Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 [1] permits supplemental jurisdiction over joined claims that do not individually meet the amount-in-controversy requirements of § 1332, [2] provided that at least one claim meets the amount-in-controversy requirements.

  7. Federal jurisdiction (United States) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_jurisdiction...

    By the "Well-Pleaded Complaint" rule, federal question jurisdiction is not available if the federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim. [3] Diversity jurisdiction, on the other hand, is available regarding state-law claims if every plaintiff is from a different state from every defendant (the requirement for so-called complete ...

  8. Pleading (United States) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleading_(United_States)

    e. Pleading in United States Federal courts is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to Rule 7, only these pleadings are allowed: [1] A complaint; An answer to a complaint; An answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; An answer to a crossclaim; A third-party complaint; An answer to a third-party complaint; and.

  9. National Environmental Policy Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental...

    This is referred to as the "well-pleaded" complaint rule. Parts of a complaint requesting removal of anticipated construction can be ignored by Federal courts since construction was not an actual controversy at the time the complaint was filed. Therefore, if project construction starts after a NEPA complaint is filed, the NEPA complaint will ...